why a god is impossible

[Beleth]

Easy enough dealt with. Here's an objective analogy.

I am, I claim, a "perfect" tic-tac-toe player. Depending upon where you grew up, you may know the game as noughts-and-crosses or any of several other names. Basically, we both place X's and O's in succession on a 3x3 grid, and the first one to get three in a row wins. I claim to be a perfect player because I never lose, and I can always win if you make a mistake permitting it. (We'll ignore fatigue and error here for the moment.)

So the definition of "perfect" tic-tac-toe, in its entirety, is "get three in a row first, or failing that, do not permit your opponent to get three in a row."

That's it.

Does that mean that every game I play is identical? Of course not. The game is multiway symmetric, so I can, for example, win by starting out in any of the four corners.

That's because the internal process of the game is irrelevant. As long as the criteria for a perfect game is met, that's all that matters.

What I'm saying is that we do not have an objective definition of what a "perfect being" is, and until we do, it's jumping the gun to use a definition to rationalize God out of, or into, existence.

 

[drkitten]

So the definition of "perfect" tic-tac-toe, in its entirety, is "get three in a row first, or failing that, do not permit your opponent to get three in a row."

That's it.

More or less, yes.

What I'm saying is that we do not have an objective definition of what a "perfect being" is, and until we do, it's jumping the gun to use a definition to rationalize God out of, or into, existence.

Which is also more or less what I'm saying. Since "perfect" does not mean "without desire," it is at best a mistake and at worst downright stupid to claim (as RandFan does) that a perfect being must be without desire. You might as well claim that "perfection entails being made of chocolate" and infer from that that God melts in the hot sun.

RandFan simply has no basis, in logic or in language, for asserting, as he does, that

If god wanted ice cream then it implies that god would some how be "better" if he had the ice cream.

 

[slingblade]

I'm wondering if a thing can be perfect and have a consciousness? Does having a consciousness mean having a sense of self? If one has a sense of self, does that mean having a sense of what is self and not-self? What is the purpose of a sense of self? To recognize and provide for one's needs? If one has a sense of self because it is necessary to ensure provenance of one's needs, then one has needs and therefore cannot be perfect.

But then, I know we're still trying to decide what perfect is. I don't know if we can without playing an endless meta game.

What's perfect? Something without flaw.
What's a flaw? Something that renders a thing less than perfect.

Well, great. Now we're chasing our metaphoric tails.
A flaw can be the lack of something. But a flaw can also be the addition of something, or the existence of something not needed. A superfluity. So, something that's perfect not only needs or lacks nothing, but also has nothing superfluous. It is whole and entire.

Oooh. So either God was lacking something when he made us, which means he wasn't perfect at creation, but was after. Or else he made us without needing us, so he's not perfect now, but was before.

Is that a false dichotomy, or does that work? And does it mean that, regardless, our existence renders God imperfect?

 

[slingblade]

Oooh, and if it's not perfect, can it be a god? If it exists, I mean, of course. Hypothetically speaking. And if it's not a God, maybe it's just a big bully who can do a few more things than we can and wants us to think it's a God.

Why, yes, I do like science fiction. Why do you ask?

 

[drkitten]

I'm wondering if a thing can be perfect and have a consciousness?

Sure. Why the hell not?

Given that you can't define "perfect," I see no reason why you can't attribute another undefinable entity to it.

Now, what I wonder is whether or not it's possible for a frilnap to be both blorgatious and eplifarvian at the same time. In Wisconsin. Legally, of course.

And I'm sure that some people on this thread will be happy to answer that question, despite the fact that they have no idea what any of the content words actually mean.

What's perfect? Something without flaw.
What's a flaw? Something that renders a thing less than perfect.

Well, great. Now we're chasing our metaphoric tails.
A flaw can be the lack of something. But a flaw can also be the addition of something, or the existence of something not needed. A superfluity. So, something that's perfect not only needs or lacks nothing, but also has nothing superfluous. It is whole and entire.

Oooh. So either God was lacking something when he made us, which means he wasn't perfect at creation, but was after. Or else he made us without needing us, so he's not perfect now, but was before.

Is that a false dichotomy, or does that work?

Neither. It's simply wrong. It assumes that something can't change and still be perfect.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. As I pointed out upthread, I can play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe. It starts out perfect, it continues to be perfect, and it remains perfect until the point at which the game ends.

Was the game less perfect before I made my second move? Did my making the third move suddenly render the game imperfect? Or is the perfection inherent in the unfolding from one perfect state to another?

 

[slingblade]

Sure. Why the hell not?

I'm asking. And then I provide a line of thought for examination.

Given that you can't defined "perfect," I see no reason why you can't attribute another undefinable entity to it.

I....guess. So we can't discuss it? Just dismiss it with a dash of snark?

Okay.

 

[drkitten]

I....guess. So we can't discuss it? Just dismiss it with a dash of snark?

Oh, was that only a dash? I'm sorry. I guess I need to make a run to the store and replenish my supply. That was intended to be a full-court-press dessert spoon, at least.

Sure, we can discuss it. It's simply that there's very little there to discuss. The question of what "perfect" means has been the central issue more or less since the OP, without resolution.

I guess I'm not clear on what effect you think surrounding "perfect" with other undefinable terms will have on the "discussion."

 

[joobz]

I think the reasoning isn't convincing either.

Someone of faith could always say that if god wants, the wanting is the perfect state. If god hates, then hating is the perfect state. If god goes bowling....

Simply the fact that god is god makes him perfect.

---
ps. I don't agree with this, but this just highlights the trouble with the perfect claim.

I'd rather stick with the argument that Randfan has used many times before: God likes to kill children, therefore god is amoral contradicting all other claims of god.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd rather stick with the argument that Randfan has used many times before: God likes to kill children, therefore god is amoral contradicting all other claims of god.

Immoral.

Remember who planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil!

 

[Beleth]

More or less, yes.

What did I miss, or unnecessarily include?

I hate harping on this but I can't proceed until we agree exactly on what a perfect game of tic-tac-toe entails.

As I pointed out upthread, I can play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe. It starts out perfect, it continues to be perfect, and it remains perfect until the point at which the game ends.

Was the game less perfect before I made my second move? Did my making the third move suddenly render the game imperfect? Or is the perfection inherent in the unfolding from one perfect state to another?

If my definition of a perfect game of tic-tac-toe is correct, then the game's perfection is undetermined while it is being played. Otherwise you run into all sorts of paradoxes -- is a game that "was perfect" up until its fifth move, which turned out to be a huge blunder and allowed the opponent to win on the sixth move, truly perfect before the fifth move? Is a perfect game in progress equally perfect to a finished perfect game? And so on.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I never said it should. You are missing the point.

What is perfection? What is the objective criteria that we use to determine whether Eastern philosophy is right or not? The concept of perfection is at best, AT BEST, controversial. There are some very good arguments in favor of Eastern philosophy.

So why even try to figure out what constitutes perfection in the first place? It seems to me that you are saying, here, let's define perfection in this way and see if our ideas are consistent with that definition.

I'm sorry but that is just silly. It really is.

Of course it's silly. We're two guys arguing aout the perfection of a being we don't believe in. Kinda fun, though.

Relevant to what? Your preconcived notion about perfection?

A definition is not a pysical law that governs the universe. Words are used to convey meaning. They help us communicate not dictate physical laws or logical abstract reasoning.

Right, but if we're going to have a useful discussion about anything, we should have an idea of what we mean by a word we use. I personally do not care which definition of perfect we're using, as I see none that preclude desire...

Including the one you gave. All you are saying is that any desire is a desire for improvement, an idea I already said I disagree with. Why does God wanting an ice cream mean that God would be better with an ice cream? The only way this is true is to accept the premise that a desire is in itself a flaw the satisfaction of which is improvement. Why should this be so?

 

[slingblade]

Oh, was that only a dash? I'm sorry. I guess I need to make a run to the store and replenish my supply. That was intended to be a full-court-press dessert spoon, at least.

Yes. Sometimes I need to be hit repeatedly in the head with a two-by-four before I learn the lesson of staying the hell away from the person swinging it.

I have now learned that lesson and am adding you to ignore.

 

[drkitten]

What did I miss, or unnecessarily include?

A perfect game of tic-tac-toe should be won if the position is winnable. If I'm given a winning position and manage only to eke out a draw, then it's not perfect.

If my definition of a perfect game of tic-tac-toe is correct, then the game's perfection is undetermined while it is being played. Otherwise you run into all sorts of paradoxes -- is a game that "was perfect" up until its fifth move, which turned out to be a huge blunder and allowed the opponent to win on the sixth move, truly perfect before the fifth move?

That's not a paradox. That simply doesn't happen with skilled (or "perfect") players; we know enough about the game to be able to identify the implications of each move as it happen. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of a "perfect" player -- in any situation, a perfect player will play an optimal move. In the case of tic-tac-toe, "optimal" is objectively verifiable.

Even in a much more complicated game (such as chess), skilled players can identify good and bad moves while the game is still in progress.

Is a perfect game in progress equally perfect to a finished perfect game? And so on.

Yes.

 

[Belz...]

Why? I see no reason why "desire" is incompatible with "perfection."

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything ? If you don't have that for which you have a need, how are you perfect ?

 

[joobz]

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything ? If you don't have that for which you have a need, how are you perfect ?

Can you not be in a perfect state of wanting?

 

[drkitten]

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything?

You keep using that "by definition" phrase.

Show me the definition of perfect that includes "without need" and we'll talk.

Or else unpack your argument.

 

[Belz...]

Can you walk me through how being perfect and having volition are mutually exclusive? There is no reason a perfect being would not have volition.

Yes, there is. Any need shows that something's lacking. By definition, a perfect beign has no need. If it has no need, there is no reason to do anything, including creating stuff for the hell of it.

... so get some. If you're omnipotent, nothing is stopping you from fulfilling that particular want.

Nothing's stopping you, but nothing making you either.

I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

Omnipotence is incompatible with perfection, omnipresence, omniscience, and even itself. It's an untenable concept.

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct?

Do you have an actual argument ?

 

[Belz...]

Quite the contrary. It's not only not obvious, but it's wrong.

I don't think you're using the same definition of "perfect" than RandFan or I.

 

[RandFan]

Of course it's silly. We're two guys arguing aout the perfection of a being we don't believe in. Kinda fun, though.

I was thinking about that today.

Right, but if we're going to have a useful discussion about anything, we should have an idea of what we mean by a word we use. I personally do not care which definition of perfect we're using, as I see none that preclude desire...

Yes, I agre that we should agree with what we are talking about. The problem is that it really is so damn hard to define. It's like trying to comprehend infity. We can't really do it because our minds are finite. Much is the same with perfection. We can only apply finite reasoning to an absolute that doesn't lend itself to such reasoning. I have to take exception. A perfect state that can be improved is not perfect.

Including the one you gave. All you are saying is that any desire is a desire for improvement, an idea I already said I disagree with. Why does God wanting an ice cream mean that God would be better with an ice cream?

Why on earth would he want something that wouldn't imrpove his state? I can honestly say that I've never experienced this in my life. Do you want things that won't improve your state of being? Make you feel better?

The only way this is true is to accept the premise that a desire is in itself a flaw the satisfaction of which is improvement.

No, the premise is that the state is improved. When I eat icecream it improves my state of being. I'm better. Happer. If that were not true I wouldn't eat the ice cream. You are for some reason confusing flaw with improvement. I don't think that follows. The definition doesn't mention flaw. You are simply assuming that.

2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better

So, if god is improved in any way by eating ice cream then that would negate his state being so goo that nothing could make it better.

 

[RandFan]

Since "perfect" does not mean "without desire,"

On the contrary. It means, in part, exactly that.

Desire implies that one's state could be improved.

2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better

...it is at best a mistake and at worst downright stupid to claim (as RandFan does) that a perfect being must be without desire.

Ad hominem.

You might as well claim that "perfection entails being made of chocolate" and infer from that that God melts in the hot sun.

Poor analogy. When I eat ice cream it improves my state.

RandFan simply has no basis, in logic or in language, for asserting, as he does, that

Not true at all. I've given the logic again and again. All you can do is assert that it is wrong. That's poor form.